Talk:Fairhair dynasty

Untitled

This article was frankly very poor - no reliable or verifiable sources at all, and a seemingly over-literal use of Norwegian names. I've stripped it down to the basics and added a king-list taken from List of Norwegian monarchs. If people want to expand the article, feel free, but please make sure that you cite your sources and don't add your own original research. -- ChrisO 21:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Genelogy

Most medieval genealogies of noblemen and royals were actually all made up centuries later to gain political power by claiming noble birth. To point out that they contain false links is like criticizing a crime novel for just being fiction. Of course its made up!.. If people of the 12th century actually believed that i.e. Sverre was the son of King Sigurn Munn, it had political consequences, regardless the fact that it was a forgery. Perceived (and sometimes false) genealogies may be equally as historically important as true genealogies.

"But its more likely that only three generations of rulers in lineage of Harald Fairhair himself are known, and all the rest afterwards just used the prestige and name of the country's first unifier." Sounds plausible, but that is not the point the medievalist are making. It was (probably) in the 12th century that it was politically advantageous to claim inheritance as far back as AD 890, instead of e.g. Saint Olav (died 1030). "The rest" didn't claim being members of a Fairhair dynasty, it was instead claimed later that they had been members of the Fairhair dynasty by their postdecessors. (Same logic as it was in 1648, that 1618 became the start of the 30 years war) --H@r@ld 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A Norwegian nationalist/ traditionalist view to Fairhair dynasty

On 1 May 2007 an anonymous Norwegian contributor edited this article in a way that the non-traditionalist viewpoint was erased away. Editors may want to dissect that one's claims and comment upon such. The outcome on 1 May was: Suedois 15:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Dynasty itself: traditional view vs artificial construct

The Fairhair dynasty is the first royal dynasty of the united Kingdom of Norway. It was founded by King Haraldr hinn hárfagri, known as Harald Fairhair or Finehair, around 870. Its last ruler was king Olav IV who died in 1387.

The descent starting from Harald Hardrule (872-930) down to Magnus IV of Norway is undisputed. Sverre Sigurdsson's claim to be the son of Sigurd Munn is however disputed, which could make Inge Bårdsson the last king of a dynasty.

The concept of a "Fairhair dynasty" is probably an invention from the later mediaeval period, when rivalry between throne pretenders, and desire to enforce the legitimacy of the whole dynasty compared with its early rivals, made it appropriate to trace royal lineages back to the 9th century in order to gain legitimacy for their rule.

A few of the Norwegian earls in the early 11th century were in fact tribute-paying petty rulers subjugate to Denmark, or outright Danish vice-kings, however, Denmark were also under Norwegian control for a brief period later in the same century. Many contemporary historians conceals however that for a period of 20 years the earl of Hladir was in fact the sole and undisputed ruler of Norway, while he has by many been described as just a petty king under Danish control.

The Kingdom of Norway as a unified realm was initiated by King Harald Fairhair in 9th century. His efforts in unifying the petty kingdoms of Norway, resulted in the first known Norwegian central government. The country however fragmented soon, and was collected into one entity again several times during the 10th century, it was finally stabilized by Magnus I and later Harald III when they did not only secure Norway as an independent kingdom, but also subdued Denmark for a period. This marked the coming period (1035-1130) as the time when Norway was the most powerfull kingdom of Scandinavia. Norway has been a monarchy since then, passing through several eras.

Thus was born the medieval kingdom of Norway, the realm of the Fairhair dynasty.

Norway was the hereditary kingdom of this dynasty, i.e agnatic descendants of the first unifier-king. The throne was inherited by all of Harald's male descendants. In the 13th century, the kingdom was officially declared hereditary by law. Contrary to other Scandinavian monarchies (which were elective kingdoms in the Middle Ages) Norway has always been a hereditary kingdom.

Harald Fairhair was the first king of Norway, as opposed to "in Norway". The date of the first formation of a unified Norwegian kingdom was 872 when he defeated the last petty kings who resisted him at the Battle of Hafrsfjord, however the consolidation of his power took many years. The boundaries of Fairhair's kingdom were not identical to those of present day Norway all the way north, and upon his death the kingship was shared among his sons for a short period. Harald was however the first king to have control over the entire country, and therefore the true unifier of Norway. Olav II is generally held to be the driving force behind Norway's final conversion to Christianity, though it was started by Olav I. He was later also revered as Rex Perpetuum Norvegiæ (Latin: the eternal king of Norway).[1]

The Fairhair dynasty, is not, an artificial construct. The genealogical lines between Harald Fairhair and the generation of Olav the Saint and Harald Hardraade is real, however Danish historians have tried to proove it otherwise.

From our sources, it seems reasonable to assume that Olav II and Harald III were half-brothers, from the same mother. Their line back to Harald I comes through their fathers however, both descended from the great unifier of Norway.

Harald III's father were a descendent, in unbroken male line, from a younger (son of Harald Fairhair. The same goes regarding Olav II's line...."

Seperation

The different branches of the so-call Fairhair dynasty should be seperated to their own articles, maybe stubs. There is already a House of Hardrada article (which still needs to be broken down into Hardrada and Gille branch), and I created House of Sverre. Can someone else create the other branches?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, because there is this big scholarly issue of whether the Fairhair dynasty is real, which is best discussed here. I'd rather see some of the repetition removed. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The first time my family has been labelled a Dynasty, well thank you very much, however, please correct the false speculations ASAP

Holly-molly, the speculation presented in this article that my own very family history is an invention by nationalists in Norway is highly speculative. The Icelandic history records are very accurate, and the Vikings is a people that devotedly passed on knowledge about technologies, economy, and political history at a high scale between each other, and with no contestants in European history. For example, the Norwegian settlers at Iceland used 300.000 calf skins to write down and transfer knowledge between themselves and for coming generations. This was at a time when the Icelandic population was only 50.000. Moreover, the oral tradition of passing on knowledge and wisdom was and is still highly appreciated in Nordic countries compared to e.g. in Central Europe. In conjunction with a dubious library fire in Copenhagen in the Medieval times, a good majority of this Viking knowledge and historic records disappeared somehow. An accurate Historian should instead analyse this fire as to why this happened, and notably which persons/ families would have benefited from such a library fire... My message to the persons/ "historians" having planted their speculations online on Wikipedia about my very own family and family tree -- which has been passed on through family generations both orally and also well-documented in church-books, and widely-known Viking literature sources that have been carbon dated; Rather than planting such seeds/ speculations online to in an attempt to increase your own citation index on your citations, please READ the copies of the original documents, and try to VALIDATE your claims against all the church books written down in Norway. These document both marriages and all children that were baptized in the churches and chapels. I can already tell you the results: your theory is incorrect. In essence, there are multiple issues this article and some citations. Honestly, what are your motives for planting such online rumors about my family? Best regards from a very direct descendant of both Harald Fairhair, Tryggve Olafsson, Olav Trygvasson on both my mother and father side of my family.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaviking (talk • contribs)

Hi Yaviking: Good to hear from you. (I've moved your post to the bottom and appended your user name.) The problem is that Wikipedia requires reliable sources, so what you need to do is find scholars we can cite to balance the viewpoint presented. We can't just eliminate what has been published by one or more recognised scholars; what we can and should do, however, is reflect what other recognised scholars have written if it is in disagreement. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yngvadottir: Thank you for your comment. You are more than welcome to visit the National Library e.g in Denmark, Norway, Iceland to analyse the church books. There is the view that these records are considered more reliable sources of information (e.g. like driving licenses, birth certificates, notary-stamped documents, and so forth), than peer reviewed history/ art/ archaeology publications. I accept Scholars being scientific or religious, however, in my view a historian is generally an educated person with a view. In the old days a historian in the Norse culture was called a Skald (Eng: Scull, Head), and these were paid by the person (e.g. king) wanting his story to be told favorably, e.g. in poetry form. Thus, history articles always come with a certain level of bias. However, church books, land registries, laws, and other public records, would generally have less bias, thus considered accurate/ factual as the purpose is to document and not to write a balanced mix of reality and favorable views as history generally is. Examples of terms with historic bias/ purposes: "Celts/ celtic" is an invented term, why?: probably to confuse Brits of their true origins. "Germanic people/ language" is also an invented/ constructed term, why?: leading to WWII likely to justify for Germans that they could claim rule over the European areas the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, later referred to as Vikings, (Goth as in Gothenburg, Jut=Goth) conquered/ settled/ migrated to/ ruled more than a thousand year ago with more or less success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaviking (talk • contribs)

Hi again: without getting too deeply into historiography (the church also had a POV, at least in the old days, and in any case this article rests more on Heimskringla than on church birth and death records or on charters, of which there are very few from the early days, and none from the heathen days), the thing of it is is that this is an encyclopedia, so we seek to reflect what reliable sources have written on the issue. That means historians' publications take precedence, so if you seek to change the balance in the article, find a historian to cite who analyzes the textual evidence differently. Such sources do not have to be in English, of course. (By the way, I am signing this by typing ~~~~ - the software converts that into a signature and time stamp. If you don't have that character on your keyboard, there will be a squiggle or a pencil symbol somewhere in the menu above the input field, which you can click on to get the row of them.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fairhair dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228054707/http://www.genealogi.no/Genealogen/Artikler/kongar_i_aettetavlene.htm to http://www.genealogi.no/Genealogen/Artikler/kongar_i_aettetavlene.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)